i have a two paper is in one case one is response paper from my partner and my first paper so now i need to put togeter and raise an argument about the case i put the direction and also the article

Response Paper

The issue presented by Shadia in her paper is a parent’s right to refuse treatment for their children, utilizing the case of Oshin Kiszko as the example. This issue was also used to highlight the overarching moral issues pertaining to ideological disagreements between parents and medical professionals. However, I struggled in determining which side of the issue she aligned herself. I believe a more concise declaration of which side was being argued would be incredibly beneficial to the reader. Additionally, I think a diversification of examples would help further flesh out the complexities of the issue. As an offhand note pertaining to the Oshin case, while it is presented in the current tense, in fact he actually passed away in 2016.

The difficulty in determining which side of the argument is being discussed, pointed out above, also makes discussing the contributing premises. My understanding of the premises presented take two forms, first if she is siding with the parents.

1. An emphasis should be placed on parental autonomy

2. The parents had the legal authority to refuse treatment

3. The hospital was not acting in the interests of the child by prioritizing longevity over quality of life.

The second set of premises observed is if she is siding with the hospital and courts’ decisions.

1. While patient autonomy should be respected, children are incapable of making such decisions.

2. The courts ruled in favor of the doctors and hospital in continuing to treat the child/

3. The parents were not acting in the interests of the child when they halted potentially lifesaving treatments in favor of end of life care.

While an argument can be made from either perspective, I believe a diversification of examples for either side would help make a more compelling argument. Additionally, I believe a more decisive position on the topic would help readers in understanding the argument. Unfortunately, this is the maximum extent of evaluation and commentary I can provide for thi